I'm happy about being the first to comment, but on a more serious note: This video is proof of what the nonpartisan 9/11 commision report stated. This is what liberals have been screaming out since the beginning of the war. Despite this video, I'm sure the right wingers will stay say that the war was the absolute best and rightest thing to do. I'm beginning to think that Bush didn't just do it to get his contracting buddies rich. This may be a bit of a stretch, but does anybody agree with me that Bush did it out of maybe hate for Arabs?? I know it sounds kind of weird, but I'm sure that Arab hatred must have been a partial reason for going to war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

trying to go with the facts again?

HA. Like facts matter to the majority of the dumb-ass peasants.

We don't need no stickin' facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And so was Saddam who as a glorified CIA bankrolled assassin from 1959 to the time he was officially set up and betrayed for Gulf War I.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=856

The only FBI agent worth trusting on “security” issues was Sibel Edmonds muzzled by neocon frontman Cheney and his Supreme Court of injustice with the "State Secrets Privilege". (Edmonds has proof of government foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks among other state crimes).

Check it out...



“I saw papers that show the U.S. knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes… I gave [the 9-ll Commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented.”
Sibel Edmonds (whistleblower FBI translator on closed session testimony to the 9-11 Commission. The Bush/Cheney administration silenced Edmonds with a court gag order citing the rarely used “state secrets privilege”. Interview UK Independent 4/2/04)

“We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait… We have many Americans who would like to see the price [of Big Oil] go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.”
April Glaspie U.S. Ambassador Iraq (officially stating U.S. policy to Saddam Hussein and in effect, green lighting his Iraq takeover of Kuwait. Glaspie said these words 8 days before an American invasion & Gulf War when Saddam was betrayed by the Bush administration. As a Baath contract killer, Saddam Hussein was originally groomed by the CIA from 1959 on and put into power in 1963 by the U.S. as well as the British and supported thereafter. Quote from Baghdad, Iraq, July 25, 1990)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and exactly why i argued to my iraqi friends why sadam should not be executed: because it allows others to speak for him in the creation of this new narrative...
to me this rings true (sadam was not allied to osama because you can't have two kings), but the funny part comes when the interviewer asks if sadam did not look at al quaida as ally in their war against the US. what war against the US? Iraq has no war against the US, the US has continually had war against Iraq. by the time there could have even been an Iraqi war against the US occupation, sadam was on the run, so this whole line of questioning is stupid, and heresay...
the worst one was that one the other day in which bozo claimed sadam told him he was faking WMD's to scare Iran, and never believed the US would invade? wha? everyone knew the US was hell bent on manufacturing a reason to invade for ages, so give me a freakin break...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sheesh. S. Hussein and bin Laden...not best of friends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a respone to andrewstromotich remark made of Ronald Kessler who was the author who interview Piro and made the comment of Saddam stating he wanted to leave the impression he still had WMDs in order to prevent an attack by Iran.

If you want to honestly look at the comment, it is a very damming statement U.S policy toward Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. In effect, Iraq did not have the W.M.Ds for at least 5 years before we invaded. So, the whole sanctions regime was a horrid joke that cost the lives of hundred of thousands of Iraqis during that time. When Iraq said it had not W.M.Ds and inspectors confirm, there was soon something from U.S saying he was a liar. Any weaken of what was very strict sanctions put on Iraq was denounced by the Clinton Administration and in the whole media. The iron fist approach towards was order of the day. The only thing to be argue is how many bombs to drop and how to make it harder on the Iraqi so they will turn against Saddam.
All this damage over nothing and not a word. The reason for this is simple, it means a very honest look at the Clinton's and the Democratic Party policy toward Iraq and our Foreign Policy experts. Very difficult since even if this occurs, the attacks from the Right-Wing will be mericless. Judging by how they are so far spinning this, how far they can go is anyones guess. Add Election and Hillary and this important moment of examination of our Foreign Policy will be allow to pass.
On one note, anything to learn is when we talk of Foreign Policy, we are talking about Nations with People, not indvidual leaders. It is Iraq we sanction and invaded, not Saddam. Our discussion of Iran should of Iran and Iranians, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who of course has almost no power in manners of Nuclear Programs and the Iranian military).
Eric

Note:
a. 5 years refers to "Operation Desert Fox" of '98. I think it was more around '96.
b. The Sanctions put on Iraq happen when Iraq Invaded Kuwait. The Sanctions impose was in the framework and context of one nation occupying another. These were very harsh sanctions imposed on Iraq with little changes till our invasion, 12 years later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm skeptical about this interview. It was too neat and tidy. Sadam Hussein was a dictator about to hang. These guys don't bare their souls or try to be understood. And they certainly don't admit mistakes. Bush knew there were no weapons and that we were not threatened by Iraq in any way. The UN inspectors had done an outstanding job of dismantling everything. Bush knew that. What about the 935 lies? Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What common sense told us was correct? That when there was no proof for weapons, there were likely to be no weapons. That a secular tyrant wasn't best buddies with the religious zealots who had called for the destruction of his nation specifically because of its secularism?

Anyone who bought ANY of the shit Bush was shoveling simply had not kept up with what was going on in the middle east for the past couple decades or even since the first gulf war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To effect an impeachment of cheney/bush is on record and IRREFUTABLE. If put on trial, it's a slam dunk that conviction for multiple capital crimes will ensue. So, who's going to grab the tiger by the tail, huh? Courage and moral convictions seem to be in short supply, don't they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The video debunks one thing while reenforcing another. Saddam an enemy? Let's have another story. Saddam always accepted the authority of the US as the big don, and was sitting it out till the US would come round to the sensible point of view that he was a good ally. Clinton tried to normalize relations when he became president but quickly backpedaled. Colin Powell wrote about his worry during the war that they demonized Saddam too much and that it would be hard to revert afterwards.

The next best thing for Clinton, especially after the Kuwait incident (plot to kill Bush senior) was to just kill the one symbolic figure and then normalize relations. Which somehow Saddam didn't agree with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]